The R Word

[Schadrach]

Right, no one ever gets convicted based on an accusation and little to nothing else, not even say Paul Greig in Ireland, or Brian Banks for a recent US example, and no one only escapes by having a mountain of exculpatory evidence because they happened to be in the right places at the right time like Louis Gonzales (who got off primarily because his location was only unaccounted for for 6 minutes out of the entire day), right?

Juries make mistakes, which is why it's not always a good idea to ask for trial by jury. In the Grieg case, it seems pretty likely that they didn't make a mistake. There are dodgy elements, but there was a stronger case against him than you're making out. Maybe don't get your information from MRA sites.

Actually I used STV and the BBC, who are of course totally MRA sites. Do you have a source somewhere that supplies more information than the BBC and STV articles on the case, or am I missing something besides the victim testimony and "clearly damaged"?

Brian Banks pleaded guilty. He wasn't found guilty, he wasn't convicted on the basis of evidence. He was accused, and he pleaded guilty. The justice system cannot find you innocent if you plead guilty.

A black man facing a rape charge, why ever would he go for a plea deal against a crime in which victim testimony only is frequently enough for a conviction in a justice system where both conviction and sentencing are biased against both blacks and men (it's actually better to be a black woman than a white man when it comes to sentencing)?

There's no evidence that Louis Gonzales' case would have been found either way. It's empty speculation to claim otherwise. If you're saying it's bad because he shouldn't have been arrested, perhaps bear in mind that a woman was actually raped and tortured in that case. Yeah, I don't think she's doing as well as he is.

Really? The main reason he wasn't convicted is because it was shown to be physically impossible for him to committed the crime (the utter lack of physical evidence that he had committed the crime didn't seem to be an issue to the prosecution after all, so they at least felt they had a decent chance using only victim testimony).

As for Tracy West, wasn't there some evidence that suggested she may have set it up (for example, that she researched the knots used to tie her beforehand)? Of course, I can totally accept that "This specific man, my ex, did this to me in this narrow time frame because I was at this specific point in my schedule when it happened (at least until revealed he couldn't possibly have done it then, in which case I was mistaken about the time, and it could have happened at any point between when he got off the plane and when I was found). He brought with him a rape toolkit that he used in order to remove or destroy all possible physical evidence that this ever happened (including mittens so she couldn't scratch him, gloves and coveralls for himself, and so on), and he used a clothes hanger to perpetrate the attack that he also removed and destroyed without a trace along with the kit, so don't be surprised when there's absolutely no evidence that he did it, or any physical proof that anyone unusual was even here. He also did this in a fashion that bears none of the medical markers of this type of assault. You can find him over there, waiting to pick up our child for his side of our custody agreement that I've been doing everything else in my power to prevent."

To quote the LA Times (totally an MRA site) article on this case:

As the custody battle staggered on, hearing by hearing, Las Vegas family court Judge Bill Henderson wrestled aloud with the implications of the criminal case. He didn't believe Gonzalez attacked West. But must he conclude, he asked, that she made it all up? Perhaps someone else attacked her?

No, testified John Paglini, the court-appointed psychologist who had interviewed West four times: Either Gonzalez attacked her, or she lied.

"She could have said, 'On Feb. 1st I was attacked by somebody, I don't know who it was,' but she picked this guy out, and she was very definite," Paglini told the court. "It couldn't be somebody else. She said, 'I heard his voice, I saw his face.'"

Asked about the events of that day during a deposition, West invoked her 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Of course, Gonzales was completely unaffected by his nearly three months in jail, and narrowly avoiding a lengthy sentence for a crime he didn't commit solely through having a very thorough alibi:

What if he had grabbed breakfast in Las Vegas before boarding his flight? He wouldn't have needed that bagel in Simi Valley, so he wouldn't have gone to the bank for cash, and wouldn't have been caught on security cameras.

His alibi evaporates and he's in prison for life.

At the end of the day his mind automatically replays his movements, hour by hour, because it was his ability to do that that saved him. After his release he developed the habit of meticulously documenting his whereabouts, eliminating time gaps that might leave him vulnerable.

If he's in an airport or a 7-Eleven, he makes sure the surveillance cameras get a good look at his face. Anytime he can swipe his credit card and sign his name, even to buy a pack of gum, he does it. He fills his wallet with receipts and the world with a conspicuous trail.

He feels most vulnerable when he is asleep, when, for six or eight hours a night, no cameras are watching, no witnesses are marking his presence, and no one but Louis Gonzalez III can say with certainty where he is.

Your answer to it being difficult to get a conviction against the standard "beyond a reasonable doubt" if there's no evidence that the accused is the perpetrator, or in some cases no evidence that a crime occurred at all beyond the accusation of the victim is to make it virtually impossible to defend yourself instead?

No.

It would be nice if we could stop punishing women for coming forward with rape cases. It would be nice if we could stop convicting them for perverting the course of justice as soon as they fail to act like a robot. It would be nice if we didn't just dump them back on the street or, more likely, ask them to move back in with the person who they allege has raped them when they inevitably failed to secure a conviction.

Basically, I have no problem with the standards as long as we accept them for what they actually are, an assessment of whether there is enough evidence to convict someone of rape, rather than as a genuine assessment of whether an actual rape has occurred. The tragedy is how many people are going through the awful meat grinder that is a rape trial and are either coming away with nothing or actually being punished for coming forward.

So, you're fine with it so long as accusing someone specific and known to you of a crime they didn't commit isn't falsely accusing them unless there exists hard physical proof that no crime occurred at all (go proving a negative!)? Or only if that crime is rape? Is it reasonable to at least consider the possibility, in cases in which the accused was known to the accuser, named by the accuser as the perpetrator, and a motive exists as to why they might choose to lie, that it might actually be a lie?

I will never understand why you people are so obsessed with shutting down any kind of legal reform. I can only assume it's some misguided "boys versus girls" bullshit.

Name legal reforms you would feel are appropriate. Do these impugn upon the rights of the accused, which are generally there for very good reasons? Do they function to make it dramatically easier to convict someone of a heinous crime on little to nothing showing that the alleged perpetrator committed the crime beside an accusation, and the inability of the accused to prove a negative? What about reforms to protect persons from false accusations (such as giving them similar protections from the media as alleged victims, until such time as the accused is convicted, rather than perp walks)?

Imagine for a moment that Paul Greig is innocent (just Google Paul Greig rape for info). How would you defend yourself?

I wouldn't have asked for a trial by jury.

Imagine for a second you are Brian Banks. How should you have been able to defend yourself from that accusation?

I would have actually defended myself and not accepted a plea bargain.

Do you believe Greig would have fared better had it not been a jury trial?

Re: Banks; For a social justice-y person, you really don't seem to get that both conviction and sentencing are both slanted strongly against blacks and men. As a black man, knowing this, a plea bargain looks good when faced with the truth, which is that they'd doll Wanetta up to look as innocent, sweet, and harmless as possible, rehearse her testimony to make sure she'll deliver it in a fashion that will tug on a jury's heartstrings, and your only real defense is "Yes, I went in there with her alone and we made out. No, I didn't do the things she's saying I did to her. No, I really *can't* prove it, because no one saw us alone in there, and I wasn't recording it or anything." The only thing that would have made it worse is if she were an attractive white girl. Let me put it this way: Had Banks taken it to trial, how would he have defended himself?

Would your desire for lowered standards apply to "not rape" cases where a woman forces herself sexually on a man?

Firstly, I'm not advocating lowered standards. Would you stop assuming that.

In a previous thread you got onto me for assuming the current standard of evidence for criminal trials, because you claimed it was something that is commonly fought against, and you seemed to be in approval of. Sorry.

I don't know what the fuck is wrong with straight men that you honestly think penetrating someone and being penetrated are remotely the same thing. All I'm going to say is try it. Seriously, fucking try it.

What you're describing is a crime, in the UK it would be called "causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent" and can result in a prison term longer than the average rape sentence if it is felt that the crime is serious or malicious enough, but it is not rape. Rape is not just whatever you arbitrarily think qualifies as "sex", it is the act of forcibly penetrating someone, which is entirely different.

This applies to women as much as men. Forcible cunnilingus is not rape either, it's a different crime, while penetrating someone anally with an object is either rape or the functionally identical crime of "assault by penetration", depending on your precise legal framework.

Current FBI definition:

?Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.?

By the FBI definition, forcible cunnilingus can potentially count. Depending on whether or not you read that definition to require that the victim is the one being penetrated, it may also encompass "made to penetrate", though that is more questionable. The beauty of the way the topic is usually discussed is that men and women are currently subject to similar rates of sexual violence, the most common form in both cases involves forced sexual intercourse, and like the general populous, the majority of it is heterosexual. The net result being intentionally not counting the most common forms of sexual violence used against men, and then claiming it as proof that it's a gendered problem.

Most importantly, what should be the due diligence a man in your world (and presumably not women because they only commit "not rape") should have to go through in order to defend himself if falsely accused?

To have not committed the crime, obviously.

Under the definition of rape, if you don't believe that you have committed rape and your belief is reasonable, then you have not committed rape (unless you're having sex with a child, so don't do that either). This means that as long as you take basic measures to establish consent, you will never be at risk of being a rapist.

That is not much to ask.

You cheated. I said if falsely accused, implying that you already didn't rape someone. This can include cases where no sex actually occurred, or where there seemingly was consent, but afterward an accusation was made and the accused is claiming there wasn't consent and you didn't do whatever you did to try to establish consent.

Let me repeat it, assuming a world in which every legal "reform" you want regarding rape is taken and a woman willing to engage in deceit, how do you defend yourself from a false accusation of rape? What steps should you have to go through to protect yourself from a false accusation?

Do you think that it's a reasonable requirement to place on men? If you are a man (and I have no idea) do you currently engage in this?

Do you not?

Fucking hell.

Again, without trying to evade the question by saying that the best way to avoid a false accusation is to not commit the crime (which is assumed in the phrase "false accusation", otherwise it wouldn't be "false").

 

[Kurt Cristal]

Not to be the one to post a random slightly off direction comment, but Dragon Tattoo didn't bother the author? Jesus, I couldn't get over SEEING that scene until a freaking week later. Not even the revenge scene made me feel better. That whole bit was downright traumatizing as hell, and it's just a movie!

 

[Terminal Blue]

Actually I used STV and the BBC, who are of course totally MRA sites. Do you have a source somewhere that supplies more information than the BBC and STV articles on the case, or am I missing something besides the victim testimony and "clearly damaged"?

You do know that the justice system can choose how much information to release to the press based on the profile and sensitivity of the case right.

I looked at STV and the BBC, neither says that the only evidence was victim testimony. That claim only appears on a bunch of MRA sites. In fact, it's already clear that expert testimony was used from the fact that the psychiatrist's words were included in whatever information was released to the press.

A black man facing a rape charge, why ever would he go for a plea deal against a crime in which victim testimony only is frequently enough for a conviction in a justice system where both conviction and sentencing are biased against both blacks and men (it's actually better to be a black woman than a white man when it comes to sentencing)?

Do you have any evidence of this fact?

Because you introduced these people as if they were your evidence, now it turns out that one of them wasn't even convicted. Can you back up your claim that victim testimony is "frequently enough for a conviction?"

Because my experience is that nothing short of a confession is reliably good enough for conviction.

Also, why should the fact that your legal system may or may not be racist impact on anything?

Really? The main reason he wasn't convicted is because it was shown to be physically impossible for him to committed the crime (the utter lack of physical evidence that he had committed the crime didn't seem to be an issue to the prosecution after all, so they at least felt they had a decent chance using only victim testimony).

It is the prosecutions job to, you've guessed it, prosecute. This is a how a trial works. There is another side, the defence, whose job is to defend the client. Whichever side has the strongest legal case wins (in theory).

Again, is your point that he should never have been arrested or bought to trial when the victim had specifically named him?

As for Tracy West, wasn't there some evidence that suggested she may have set it up (for example, that she researched the knots used to tie her beforehand)?

Hang on..

The argument was seriously made that because she named a specific attacker at the scene she could not possibly have been raped except by that person.

They just decided that she self-inflicted serious injuries on herself because.. yeah, that's easier than believing than that someone might name a suspect at the scene and then become irrationally convinced of their guilt through a well-known psychological phenomenon with very clear evidence behind it.

..you are not making a good account of the American legal system here, and not for any of the reasons you're trying to claim it's bad and unfair.

Of course, Gonzales was completely unaffected by his nearly three months in jail, and narrowly avoiding a lengthy sentence for a crime he didn't commit solely through having a very thorough alibi:

..as this pointless emotional narrative, narrated presumably through the prophetic power of the sacred muses, will illustrate.

I find it outright weird that you can be sceptical to the point of believing that a woman self-harmed rather than accept that she may have been attacked, but honestly expect me to be somehow moved or persuaded by this shlock. It's this kind of thing which really makes me wonder why you are so invested.

I'll be honest, I don't believe for one second this is about justice for you or for any of your men's rights buddies. This becomes painfully obvious when I try to research this case and find countless calls for Tracy West to be hunted down and raped.

It's about team blue and team pink, and the fact that you've become so caught up in trying to score points for your team that you've blinded yourself to any real issue which doesn't get you closer to the goal line. More on this later.

So, you're fine with it so long as accusing someone specific and known to you of a crime they didn't commit isn't falsely accusing them unless there exists hard physical proof that no crime occurred at all (go proving a negative!)?

Are you trying to prove my point?

Proof beyond all reasonable doubt. Wasn't the thing you were arguing for a few seconds ago?

But now that's suddenly not good enough, now you want it so that if you can't prove beyond all reasonable doubt that a crime was committed then you are definately innocent and the person alleging otherwise did should be considered to have committed a crime without it needing to be proved?

Also, do you know what a "false" rape accusation even is? It doesn't mean what you think it means. "False" does not mean "malicious". Making a malicious accusation is a serious crime, making a false accusation is not. False reports, even false accusations, happen all the time.

Is it reasonable to at least consider the possibility, in cases in which the accused was known to the accuser, named by the accuser as the perpetrator, and a motive exists as to why they might choose to lie, that it might actually be a lie?

You can certainly allege as much. People routinely do, and I can assure you it's a lot more common and causes just as much misery as you're claiming malicious rape accusations cause.

But by the same token, is it reasonable to consider the possibility that, in cases where the accuser was known to the accused, named by the accuser as the perpetrator and could theoretically have committed the crime that they might actually have committed rape?

Maybe. But that doesn't mean anything, because that's not the standard on which the law operates.

I'm sorry, but you cannot just walk up to someone who has come into court to testify about a traumatic event in front of the person they allege is responsible and accuse them of lying. That isn't how a court operates, it is not there to punish the people who come forward by placing unfair burden of suspicion upon them without meaningful evidence.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Name legal reforms you would feel are appropriate.

Like I said. The big one is to stop assuming that a not guilty verdict means that no crime occurred. This will already solve 90% of the problems, because now it is possible to treat the alleged victim with the sensitivity due to someone who has been raped even if it cannot be determined that he or she has.

No crime has a 100% conviction rate. We cannot structure our legal system on the principle that everyone who commits a crime and gets taken to court will be convicted. Sometimes, we have to let people off. The biggest, the absolute biggest problem in rape at the moment is not lowering the standards of evidence or whatever the fuck you people think feminists are getting hard over, it's getting people to come forward, or in some cases to even recognize that they should come forward, it's getting people to feel like if they do come forward the justice system will not dismiss them, doubt them or hold them in suspicion without evidence, it's making rape trials into something other than systematic punishment of the alleged victim with very little chance of conviction and the risk of prosecution.

Fix that, and you've fixed a large part of the problem of the problem.

Do you believe Greig would have fared better had it not been a jury trial?

Not necessarily, it depends what evidence was actually used at his trial.

If what you've claimed about the case is true though, I'm pretty sure he would have stood a much better chance.

For a social justice-y person, you really don't seem to get that both conviction and sentencing are both slanted strongly against blacks and men.

Look, I apologise if you're not involved with the MRAs, but you repeat so much of the bollocks which they come out with.

Look, I get that some courts in America are pretty racist, and given the history of rape trials involving black men.. yeah, I can understand that element. But the idea that conviction and sentencing are "strongly slanted" against men is a bit weird. There is some evidence of a slight discrepancy in sentencing, but the idea that this factors into any decision making process outside of the fanciful imaginations of the men's rights lobby really doesn't work.

If you're innocent, you aren't meant to assume that a court will find you guilty unless there is overwhelming evidence against you.

I understand he took the plea on the advice of his legal team, and that had he actually been convicted his sentence would have been extremely long given the severity of the alleged crime, but the point is that he was not found guilty, he pleaded guilty.

We don't know what was going on in his mind, we can't speculate. But this is a circular example. We cannot conclude from his case that wrongful convictions are common because he was not found guilty, and we cannot conclude that he knew that wrongful convictions are common while using him as an example to prove the fact.

Had Banks taken it to trial, how would he have defended himself?

A jury can't be emotionally manipulated unless you request to be tried by a jury.

And a judge would have almost certainly found him innocent unless the prosecution could produce some evidence which you aren't mentioning.

Now, clearly he or his legal team felt that accepting 6 years was better than risking 40 years. It's never a judgement I've had to make, so I can't really comment. However, your account is flawed on the basis that it didn't happen. It didn't even need to happen. There is never the obligation for a jury trial to occur at all, and I don't understand the American legal system's obsession with them in cases where they are clearly inappropriate.

The beauty of the way the topic is usually discussed is that men and women are currently subject to similar rates of sexual violence, the most common form in both cases involves forced sexual intercourse, and like the general populous, the majority of it is heterosexual.

Where are you getting that from?

That is the dodgiest claim I think I have ever heard in one of these topics, and I would really like some evidence of it.

In fact, this is where I'm going to conclude the team blue argument, because this is what you seem to need. Unless men are being "raped" by women in equal numbers to women who are raped by men, you and your peers cannot seem to take rape seriously.

I'm sure as soon as we acknowledged that rape is not a crime disproportionately perpetrated by men, you know, like every other violent crime, then you'll suddenly find you can take rape seriously and suddenly develop a lot more sympathy about victim's rights. I mean that as a compliment. I don't doubt that you have good intentions, I do doubt that you are capable of fairly applying those intentions.

..which leads to this fucking playground bullshit which basically comes down to getting one up on the opposite sex because, oh no, that's obviously what they're trying to do to you with all their scary rape allegations. They just want more stuff for their team, which means you need to get more stuff too! No, this isn't about correcting a horrible crime which has been largely ignored until the last few decades precisely because the people it occurred to often happened to be women or men whose sexual orientation was now questionable, this is about women wanting more things when they're actually just as bad! Fuck evidence! They must be just as bad otherwise our team is bad and we can't have that!

I think this is probably the point where you've become so caught up in that bollocks that you've now actually lost touch with basic reality.

You cheated. I said if falsely accused, implying that you already didn't rape someone. This can include cases where no sex actually occurred, or where there seemingly was consent, but afterward an accusation was made and the accused is claiming there wasn't consent and you didn't do whatever you did to try to establish consent.

You claim you did.

You point out the exact ways in which you established consent. You are willing to go into detail about precisely how you did so, you back up your belief in your own innocence with evidence.

At that point, you cannot be found guilty unless it can be demonstrated that you are lying and in fact know you are guilty.

Do you want me to tell you how to get out of a rape accusation which isn't false? I can do that too. I've seen someone do it.

 

[Elithraradril]

Again, is your point that he should never have been arrested or bought to trial when the victim had specifically named him?

If there are no proofs or other witnesses ? Of course he shouldn't have been put on trial. Law is and should be based on presumption of innocence and in such case it's his word against hers.

Rape is crime that should be fought by prevention: monitoring systems, police patrols etc. and not by lowering our law standards to some tribal parody of court.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

If you don't think that should be the person who uses the hyperbole's problem or concern then you're wrong.

It is my opinion on a subjective matter and thus I can't be wrong. Nor can you be wrong for that matter. All that can be determined is that you and I have a difference of opinion on a subjective topic.

No, but you can quite easily be a piece of fucking garbage for having that opinion. You can also be a fucking idiot for having such an opinion. It fucking amazes me how you look at every fucking argument placed before you, and simply proceed to bash your fucking head against a brick fucking wall, and still have this smug sense of superiority about it. Every time you open your stupid fucking mouth and let the garbage pour forth, people shred your "opinions" to a goddamn pulp, but still you persist.

Your presenting your opinion about my character/thoughts as fact, when in reality its just your opinion. That said, I strongly disagree with your opinion about my character.

How "kind" of you to edit your post and remove the two sentences about how you hate me and wish I died in a fire. /sarcasm

 

[Terminal Blue]

If there are no proofs or other witnesses ? Of course he shouldn't have been put on trial. Law is and should be based on presumption of innocence and in such case it's his word against hers.

Except that the purpose of a trial is to establish proof. That's why we have trials.

It's not the job of the police or front line services to prove guilt. The police have one job, a job they nonetheless have a long history of systematically fucking up when it comes to rape cases, which is to gather evidence and to decide whether an accusation should go forward to court.

It's not his word against hers because she had visible injuries. Since the alleged crime was reported almost immediately, she will have been taken to a police station and had those injuries photographed as evidence, and that evidence submitted to the court. That is already not "her word against his", there is physical evidence that a crime occured with a named suspect.

This is not particular or special to rape cases. It is the standard procedure in any assault causing actual bodily harm.

If you want to live in a world where you cannot possibly be arrested. Sorry, you don't live in one, you never did. You could give yourself a black eye right now, claim someone else inflicted it and take them to court. The only reason not to do this is that it's an extremely serious crime. We cannot magically stop it from happening any more than we can magically stop rape from happening, we can only prosecute it when it is found to have happened.

And right now, perverting the court of justice is not a problematic crime. It is not an undereported crime or an unrecognised crime, if anything in these cases it is over-recognized in that many people, including many people in the criminal justice system and the police, believe it happens far more frequently than it does. The same is not true of rape.

 

[LookAtYouHacker]

I'm sorry if this sounds insensitive but, Mr. Anonymous, you need to stop having the mentality of a fucking victim. You need to stop being a coward, trying as you do to block out anything to do with rape. It only represses your emotions and thus gives them more control over you. You need to stop living in fear.

You can do it. You know how I know that you can do it? Because when I was a wee lad of 4 I was raped multiple times. I repressed it. It haunted my dreams for 14 years until I re-experienced it in its totality when I was 18. It was the fucking worse thing ever but it still wasn't enough. After that I had 5 imaginary death experiences that were at least as painful as my initial re-experience. Even after that I had to quit my university for a few semesters because I found myself to be now so incapable of dealing with any stress that I would go into a state of paralytic shock for hours on ends at the simplest demands. Hell, it's only now that I've finally got over my subconscious fear of intimacy that has prevented me from forming any kind of sexual relationship.

But you know what? I got the fuck over it. Sure, my rape is still an uncomfortable subject but I didn't have to spend two damn weeks of suffering to write this post. As for the subject of rape in general I'm fine with it. I don't get offended at the use of rape in media or in the news or by punk-ass kids on Xbox. That's because I've learned to accept it and integrate it. I am no longer afraid because instead of repressing and running away from my fears I have the courage to confront them.

Mr. Anonymous you, sir, are a damn coward right now. You're letting your fears govern your life and the more you continue to run away from your fears the more they will own you. You don't have to be a coward, Mr. Anonymous, you can find the courage to confront your fears if you just get out of the mentality of being permanently damaged. No matter what anyone tells you, you don't have to be a damaged man.

Dude...the fuck?

I was never raped, and hopefully I never will be. You were. You know how painful, how traumatizing it is. Why in the FUCK would you rip on this guy, or call him a coward? he made it clear that rape isn't something to "overcome" or a challenge you can grow from. its something you carry with you for the rest of you're life. clearly the two of you disagree, because you seem to think it's just another part of life, or something you can "roll with"

Im really happy that you no longer suffer from trauma or fears, but for christ's sake, have some sympathy for the guy. as someone who suffered as you did, try and understand, like I, and everyone else is.

Erm... it's kind of ironic that you asked the guy to have sympathy and at the same time criticized him for his emotional response. It's understandable that he gets pissed off when he sees in others the destructive weakness that he had to overcome himself. His criticism may seem harsh to us, but it is clearly aimed at helping that guy. I doubt you or I could possibly understand what either person went through, and I'm fairly certain we don't have a place in the conversation of how to deal with it. Plus, he apologized for the apparent insensitivity of his argument at the outset.

Yeah...to be completely honest, I didn't read every page of comments after reading the article (and didn't see the apology come up) and so when I first read Iron Lightning's post I was a little...excited. I did go back and edit my post. so hopefully that will clear things up.

I agree with Iron Lightning. Part of growing up is to take all of these things that happen to you and grow past them. Bad things happen. We have to accept them and move on. Even more, I have to ask everyone something. Stop having pity for us or anyone who has gone through this. Yes, it is terrible to happen. But we do not deserve any special treatment for the short comings in our lives. People are strong to move past this. Allow us to without thinking we are broken, or that we will suffer forever.

Whether or not you are a rape victim, that doesn?t justify your harsh criticisms. Substantiality of rape and its implications varies from person to person?not all are identical to yours.

 

[LookAtYouHacker]

I'm sorry if this sounds insensitive but, Mr. Anonymous, you need to stop having the mentality of a fucking victim. You need to stop being a coward, trying as you do to block out anything to do with rape. It only represses your emotions and thus gives them more control over you. You need to stop living in fear.

You can do it. You know how I know that you can do it? Because when I was a wee lad of 4 I was raped multiple times. I repressed it. It haunted my dreams for 14 years until I re-experienced it in its totality when I was 18. It was the fucking worse thing ever but it still wasn't enough. After that I had 5 imaginary death experiences that were at least as painful as my initial re-experience. Even after that I had to quit my university for a few semesters because I found myself to be now so incapable of dealing with any stress that I would go into a state of paralytic shock for hours on ends at the simplest demands. Hell, it's only now that I've finally got over my subconscious fear of intimacy that has prevented me from forming any kind of sexual relationship.

But you know what? I got the fuck over it. Sure, my rape is still an uncomfortable subject but I didn't have to spend two damn weeks of suffering to write this post. As for the subject of rape in general I'm fine with it. I don't get offended at the use of rape in media or in the news or by punk-ass kids on Xbox. That's because I've learned to accept it and integrate it. I am no longer afraid because instead of repressing and running away from my fears I have the courage to confront them.

Mr. Anonymous you, sir, are a damn coward right now. You're letting your fears govern your life and the more you continue to run away from your fears the more they will own you. You don't have to be a coward, Mr. Anonymous, you can find the courage to confront your fears if you just get out of the mentality of being permanently damaged. No matter what anyone tells you, you don't have to be a damaged man.

Dude...the fuck?

I was never raped, and hopefully I never will be. You were. You know how painful, how traumatizing it is. Why in the FUCK would you rip on this guy, or call him a coward? he made it clear that rape isn't something to "overcome" or a challenge you can grow from. its something you carry with you for the rest of you're life. clearly the two of you disagree, because you seem to think it's just another part of life, or something you can "roll with"

Im really happy that you no longer suffer from trauma or fears, but for christ's sake, have some sympathy for the guy. as someone who suffered as you did, try and understand, like I, and everyone else is.

Erm... it's kind of ironic that you asked the guy to have sympathy and at the same time criticized him for his emotional response. It's understandable that he gets pissed off when he sees in others the destructive weakness that he had to overcome himself. His criticism may seem harsh to us, but it is clearly aimed at helping that guy. I doubt you or I could possibly understand what either person went through, and I'm fairly certain we don't have a place in the conversation of how to deal with it. Plus, he apologized for the apparent insensitivity of his argument at the outset.

It?s also understandable someone would get pissed off at possibly the most potent display of selfishness, surreptitious cowardice and in-humanity I?ve ever witnessed in text. Feel free to utilize my insults/following descriptions of my actions against me, but nearly all objects in my living room are in pieces. I?m not joking, It made me that angry.

It could be to do with the fact my sister was raped and committed suicide, but somehow I also believe it to be in pertinence with my knowledge.

Whether or not he/she is a rape victim, that doesn?t justify his/her criticisms. Substantiality of rape and its implications varies from person to person?not all are identical.

As for your claim of ?destructive weakness,? you?re only reducing yourself to his/her level.

The concept of weakness in accordance to a traumatising situation, is a condition that?s only ?viable? in a still menially operational mindset. Rape (depending on the harshness) can potentially destroy the functionality of mind itself? therefore the cowardly concept of weakness isn?t always applicable.

 

[LookAtYouHacker]

Yeah, I fail to see how this is any different than a victim of torture or one who had witnessed the murder of someone dear to them at a young age. All of these things are emotionally traumatic on a deep level and will likely fuck you up for the rest of your life. Rape isn't special in that regard. At least, not so special that I'm suddenly going to treat it with some kind of new-found "respect". I never used the word rape colloquially anyway, but this doesn't really change my perspective on anything.

Many perceive rape as an act in which the perpetrator merely wants to sexually and/or swiftly gratify themselves. Therefore, how can it be so traumatising?

A number of rapists will use any verbal, physical means they can to make the victim feel as degraded as possible. Inflicted degradation is how they stimulate a sense of power over the victim, as well as (possibly) a form of externally sadomasochistic, sexual gratification.

Rape is about using sex as a tool of dominance.

Such methods include degrading language (worthless, ****, slut) sodomy, urination, defecation, spitting, slapping, hair-pulling and weaponry.

This is made more effective by the victims body being biologically self-stimulating during rape, regardless of resistance.

When women are raped, they?re being conversely reminded of how men have and in some cases still perceive women. Weak, stupid, sexual objects.

Some women are aware of the implications while BEING raped. Potential pregnancy, injustice (victim-blaming) and the intolerance they may receive. Such knowledge causes the experience to be even more upsetting.

These things are what embody the horror of rape.

It?s not solely the experience, It?s the numerous implications and how rape victims are treated by society.

 

[Elithraradril]

Except that the purpose of a trial is to establish proof. That's why we have trials.

You're so wrong I even don't know where to begin explaining. If you have no proof that this particular man committed the crime, you have no right to arrest him at all. Without proof you have no warrant, no case, no trial.
Or ...you want to create a country where you can put someone in jail only because, one person said he's a rapist ? Guy will spend months behind bars, just because you believe victim more than him ? That doesn't work this way and I hope it never will. It's like we're all in middle ages again: we won't feel secure until we have someone behind bars, so go get this man and put him in chains until we find better candidate.

It's not his word against hers because she had visible injuries. Since the alleged crime was reported almost immediately, she will have been taken to a police station and had those injuries photographed as evidence, and that evidence submitted to the court. That is already not "her word against his", there is physical evidence that a crime occured with a named suspect.

No, there isn't if you have no DNA match etc.. You still have nothing pointing Mr X except word of Ms Y. I'm sorry, but this is exactly why rape is such difficult case: because in many cases you just can't proof anything. That's why prevention is far more important than searching for court room solution.

 

[UFOROMANTIC]

If you don't think that should be the person who uses the hyperbole's problem or concern then you're wrong.

It is my opinion on a subjective matter and thus I can't be wrong. Nor can you be wrong for that matter. All that can be determined is that you and I have a difference of opinion on a subjective topic.

No, but you can quite easily be a piece of fucking garbage for having that opinion. You can also be a fucking idiot for having such an opinion. It fucking amazes me how you look at every fucking argument placed before you, and simply proceed to bash your fucking head against a brick fucking wall, and still have this smug sense of superiority about it. Every time you open your stupid fucking mouth and let the garbage pour forth, people shred your "opinions" to a goddamn pulp, but still you persist.

Your presenting your opinion about my character/thoughts as fact, when in reality its just your opinion. That said, I strongly disagree with your opinion about my character.

How "kind" of you to edit your post and remove the two sentences about how you hate me and wish I died in a fire. /sarcasm

Normally I don't like to weigh in on other people's discussions on a board like this, but in all sincerity, you're behaving like a right ass if you will continue to defend using the word "rape" in a casual, jocular context, and I guarantee you aren't making any friends here for defending "your opinion" on the "subjective matter" of rape, especially in light of an article like this. All you're doing is making yourself out to be some emotionless automaton that cares more about semantics than people. Nobody is impressed by your grasp of logic, however sound or unsound it may be. Moral relativism doesn't really stand up in the real world, and I hope that maybe this is adequately demonstrating that point to you.
How about not using the word because it offends massive swathes of people, myself included? It's really as simple as that.

 

[axlryder]

Yeah, I fail to see how this is any different than a victim of torture or one who had witnessed the murder of someone dear to them at a young age. All of these things are emotionally traumatic on a deep level and will likely fuck you up for the rest of your life. Rape isn't special in that regard. At least, not so special that I'm suddenly going to treat it with some kind of new-found "respect". I never used the word rape colloquially anyway, but this doesn't really change my perspective on anything.

Many perceive rape as an act in which the perpetrator merely wants to sexually and/or swiftly gratify themselves. Therefore, how can it be so traumatising?

A number of rapists will use any verbal, physical means they can to make the victim feel as degraded as possible. Inflicted degradation is how they stimulate a sense of power over the victim, as well as (possibly) a form of externally sadomasochistic, sexual gratification.

Rape is about using sex as a tool of dominance.

Such methods include degrading language (worthless, ****, slut) sodomy, urination, defecation, spitting, slapping, hair-pulling and weaponry.

This is made more effective by the victims body being biologically self-stimulating during rape, regardless of resistance.

When women are raped, they?re being conversely reminded of how men have and in some cases still perceive women. Weak, stupid, sexual objects.

Some women are aware of the implications while BEING raped. Potential pregnancy, injustice (victim-blaming) and the intolerance they may receive. Such knowledge causes the experience to be even more upsetting.

These things are what embody the horror of rape.

It?s not solely the experience, It?s the numerous implications and how rape victims are treated by society.

first of all, singling out woman specifically makes me take your view less seriously, as both men and woman can be and are raped.

Secondly, there's an enormous range of circumstances under which "rape" can occur. It can be an offense that leaves no significant emotional scars on the victim (they were drunk and don't even remember it happening), or result trauma deep enough to warrant suicide or insanity. People's reaction to rape is simply an extension of the trauma of rape. That still doesn't make it special. If a child witnesses his parent's torturous murder, not only will he have to live with that trauma, but he will then be an orphan, where is fate could be very grim in the wrong circumstances (try not to look at this from a first world perspective). I'm not saying victim blaming is okay or not a problem, simply that it doesn't suddenly elevate rape into some special level of awfulness to me.

thirdly, I never said it wasn't traumatic (I never even implied it). I merely said it wasn't more traumatic that the other atrocious things that happen to people around the world on a daily basis or "special" to me in some regard. Rape is shitty. So are a lot of other things. To even feel the need to make the points you made was a presumptuous inclination and a wasteful one. Wasteful of both my and your time.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Normally I don't like to weigh in on other people's discussions on a board like this, but in all sincerity, you're behaving like a right ass if you will continue to defend using the word "rape" in a casual, jocular context,

That is your opinion I guess.

and I guarantee you aren't making any friends here for defending "your opinion" on the "subjective matter" of rape,

Thanks, but I wasn't looking to comment on this thread is the hopes of making friends, I was hoping to comment on this thread to express my opinion on a very emotionally charged subject.

especially in light of an article like this. All you're doing is making yourself out to be some emotionless automaton that cares more about semantics than people. Nobody is impressed by your grasp of logic, however sound or unsound it may be.

I guess it's fortunate for me that I'm not trying to impress anybody. Instead what I am trying to do, is express my opinion, and also point out how an opinion on a subjective matter is neither right or wrong.

Moral relativism doesn't really stand up in the real world,

I disagree.

How about not using the word because it offends massive swathes of people, myself included?

I've already [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/6.379898.14940554] covered the subject of censorship on Xbox live.

 

[Elithraradril]

Moral relativism doesn't really stand up in the real world

It not only stands up, it defines the real world. 'Real world', with 'real people' is BASED on moral relativity, personal hierarchy of values. There is no such thing as absolute morality, at least not in non-totalitarian systems

 

[LookAtYouHacker]

Yeah, I fail to see how this is any different than a victim of torture or one who had witnessed the murder of someone dear to them at a young age. All of these things are emotionally traumatic on a deep level and will likely fuck you up for the rest of your life. Rape isn't special in that regard. At least, not so special that I'm suddenly going to treat it with some kind of new-found "respect". I never used the word rape colloquially anyway, but this doesn't really change my perspective on anything.

Many perceive rape as an act in which the perpetrator merely wants to sexually and/or swiftly gratify themselves. Therefore, how can it be so traumatising?

A number of rapists will use any verbal, physical means they can to make the victim feel as degraded as possible. Inflicted degradation is how they stimulate a sense of power over the victim, as well as (possibly) a form of externally sadomasochistic, sexual gratification.

Rape is about using sex as a tool of dominance.

Such methods include degrading language (worthless, ****, slut) sodomy, urination, defecation, spitting, slapping, hair-pulling and weaponry.

This is made more effective by the victims body being biologically self-stimulating during rape, regardless of resistance.

When women are raped, they?re being conversely reminded of how men have and in some cases still perceive women. Weak, stupid, sexual objects.

Some women are aware of the implications while BEING raped. Potential pregnancy, injustice (victim-blaming) and the intolerance they may receive. Such knowledge causes the experience to be even more upsetting.

These things are what embody the horror of rape.

It?s not solely the experience, It?s the numerous implications and how rape victims are treated by society.

first of all, singling out woman specifically makes me take your view less seriously, as both men and woman can be and are raped.

Secondly, there's an enormous range of circumstances under which "rape" can occur. It can be an offense that leaves no significant emotional scars on the victim (they were drunk and don't even remember it happening), or result trauma deep enough to warrant suicide or insanity. People's reaction to rape is simply an extension of the trauma of rape. That still doesn't make it special. If a child witnesses his parent's torturous murder, not only will he have to live with that trauma, but he will then be an orphan, where is fate could be very grim in the wrong circumstances (try not to look at this from a first world perspective). I'm not saying victim blaming is okay or not a problem, simply that it doesn't suddenly elevate rape into some special level of awfulness to me.

thirdly, I never said it wasn't traumatic (I never even implied it). I merely said it wasn't more traumatic that the other atrocious things that happen to people around the world on a daily basis or "special" to me in some regard. Rape is shitty. So are a lot of other things. To even feel the need to make the points you made was a presumptuous inclination and a wasteful one. Wasteful of both my and your time.

Overall, I'm a little confused. Perhaps you should have been more specific in what you desired? You requested to know why others think rape is uniquely traumatising, so I humbly gave you an individualistic answer solely based on that description.

I know both men and women can be raped. I merely pointed out that there are societal suggestions when a woman is being raped by a man.

I know there's an enormous range of circumstances under which "rape" can occur, and I wonder why you didn't think of that when you wrote your aforementioned comment on this article.

I never said rape was "special"... but then (snort) this isn't a competition. Both are traumatizing, that's what's important... obviously. However, I do believe rape is more consequential/presents more implications.

I never said you didn't understand why rape was traumatic.

The suggestion that this was a waste of both of our time came across as a needless addition, so I'll pretend I didn't read that to avoid further bewilderment.

 

[UFOROMANTIC]

Normally I don't like to weigh in on other people's discussions on a board like this, but in all sincerity, you're behaving like a right ass if you will continue to defend using the word "rape" in a casual, jocular context,

That is your opinion I guess.

and I guarantee you aren't making any friends here for defending "your opinion" on the "subjective matter" of rape,

Thanks, but I wasn't looking to comment on this thread is the hopes of making friends, I was hoping to comment on this thread to express my opinion on a very emotionally charged subject.

especially in light of an article like this. All you're doing is making yourself out to be some emotionless automaton that cares more about semantics than people. Nobody is impressed by your grasp of logic, however sound or unsound it may be.

I guess it's fortunate for me that I'm not trying to impress anybody. Instead what I am trying to do, is express my opinion, and also point out how an opinion on a subjective matter is neither right or wrong.

Moral relativism doesn't really stand up in the real world,

I disagree.

How about not using the word because it offends massive swathes of people, myself included?

I've already [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/6.379898.14940554] covered the subject of censorship on Xbox live.

So, you aren't advocating the usage of it, just defending people's usage of it however they choose to use it? That seems fair enough to me. I am of the opinion that we should be considerate to other people's feelings. The danger of exercising moral relativism in the real world is that since not everyone agrees with that you're saying, the common language can devolve easily into violence. This is why I have a big problem with most religion, actually. And now that I think about it, moral relativism accounts for the whole of society.
Societies exist and gather based upon a mutual understanding of values and common interests, as do sub and countercultures. I guess you may be exercising an unpopular opinion, and now that I think about it, though I may not agree with everything you have to say, you have my respect for sticking to your guns. I just hope that you are also open to other points of view, as there is nothing worse than being in an echo chamber where all one does is agrees with one's self. Really, what I think is really important here is not whether or not we agree, but that the conversation is taking place at all.

EDIT: ugh, I think of "fair enough" as a weasel word (phrase?). It comes off as being condescending I meant to say "okay then".

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

So, you aren't advocating the usage of it, just defending people's usage of it however they choose to use it?

Yep, that's about right.

That seems fair enough to me. I am of the opinion that we should be considerate to other people's feelings. The danger of exercising moral relativism in the real world is that since not everyone agrees with that you're saying, the common language can devolve easily into violence.

While that is possible, I think we should remember what we are discussing....people using offensive language on Xbox live and PlayStation online. If we were discussing what are the right policies of the U.N. and what should the U.N. and E.U. being doing to stop what is going on in Syria or Mali, I could understand why you may dislike moral relativism. However, lets remember that we are just discussing trash talking online.

This is why I have a big problem with most religion, actually. And now that I think about it, moral relativism accounts for the whole of society.
Societies exist and gather based upon a mutual understanding of values and common interests, as do sub and countercultures. I guess you may be exercising an unpopular opinion, and now that I think about it, though I may not agree with everything you have to say, you have my respect for sticking to your guns. I just hope that you are also open to other points of view, as there is nothing worse than being in an echo chamber where all one does is agrees with one's self.

That's true, criticism can help show the holes in my or another persons point and it is a valuable tool to have.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

I'm sorry if this sounds insensitive but, Mr. Anonymous, you need to stop having the mentality of a fucking victim. You need to stop being a coward, trying as you do to block out anything to do with rape. It only represses your emotions and thus gives them more control over you. You need to stop living in fear.

You can do it. You know how I know that you can do it? Because when I was a wee lad of 4 I was raped multiple times. I repressed it. It haunted my dreams for 14 years until I re-experienced it in its totality when I was 18. It was the fucking worse thing ever but it still wasn't enough. After that I had 5 imaginary death experiences that were at least as painful as my initial re-experience. Even after that I had to quit my university for a few semesters because I found myself to be now so incapable of dealing with any stress that I would go into a state of paralytic shock for hours on ends at the simplest demands. Hell, it's only now that I've finally got over my subconscious fear of intimacy that has prevented me from forming any kind of sexual relationship.

But you know what? I got the fuck over it. Sure, my rape is still an uncomfortable subject but I didn't have to spend two damn weeks of suffering to write this post. As for the subject of rape in general I'm fine with it. I don't get offended at the use of rape in media or in the news or by punk-ass kids on Xbox. That's because I've learned to accept it and integrate it. I am no longer afraid because instead of repressing and running away from my fears I have the courage to confront them.

Mr. Anonymous you, sir, are a damn coward right now. You're letting your fears govern your life and the more you continue to run away from your fears the more they will own you. You don't have to be a coward, Mr. Anonymous, you can find the courage to confront your fears if you just get out of the mentality of being permanently damaged. No matter what anyone tells you, you don't have to be a damaged man.

Dude...the fuck?

I was never raped, and hopefully I never will be. You were. You know how painful, how traumatizing it is. Why in the FUCK would you rip on this guy, or call him a coward? he made it clear that rape isn't something to "overcome" or a challenge you can grow from. its something you carry with you for the rest of you're life. clearly the two of you disagree, because you seem to think it's just another part of life, or something you can "roll with"

Im really happy that you no longer suffer from trauma or fears, but for christ's sake, have some sympathy for the guy. as someone who suffered as you did, try and understand, like I, and everyone else is.

Erm... it's kind of ironic that you asked the guy to have sympathy and at the same time criticized him for his emotional response. It's understandable that he gets pissed off when he sees in others the destructive weakness that he had to overcome himself. His criticism may seem harsh to us, but it is clearly aimed at helping that guy. I doubt you or I could possibly understand what either person went through, and I'm fairly certain we don't have a place in the conversation of how to deal with it. Plus, he apologized for the apparent insensitivity of his argument at the outset.

It?s also understandable someone would get pissed off at possibly the most potent display of selfishness, surreptitious cowardice and in-humanity I?ve ever witnessed in text. Feel free to utilize my insults/following descriptions of my actions against me, but nearly all objects in my living room are in pieces. I?m not joking, It made me that angry.

It could be to do with the fact my sister was raped and committed suicide, but somehow I also believe it to be in pertinence with my knowledge.

Whether or not he/she is a rape victim, that doesn?t justify his/her criticisms. Substantiality of rape and its implications varies from person to person?not all are identical.

As for your claim of ?destructive weakness,? you?re only reducing yourself to his/her level.

The concept of weakness in accordance to a traumatising situation, is a condition that?s only ?viable? in a still menially operational mindset. Rape (depending on the harshness) can potentially destroy the functionality of mind itself? therefore the cowardly concept of weakness isn?t always applicable.

My comment wasn't directed at you, but if you're demanding an apology I'll give you one anyway. I'm sorry that my comment emotionally disturbed you. That was not my intention. If that isn't enough then for God's sake I suggest that you just ignore the rest of this post and forget you ever read my post in the first place. I don't want any furniture destroyed on my account.

Spoiler

However, since it seemed like you wanted me to explain myself, then I'll try to put what I said into context.

As far as weakness goes... it is what it is, and I imagine anyone who has that sort of reaction certainly isn't going to call it a strength. There's a difference between blaming someone for being weak (basically what the commenter was doing, which I disagree with), and saying that one should try to fight one's weakness and overcome it. I'm not going to tell rape victims what to do.

However, if I find something emotionally disturbing and had an incredibly negative reaction to it, I'm not sure I'd like people coming around and telling me that "it's okay to admit that you're utterly powerless, you'll never be able to control it, it's not your fault." I'm not sure I'd want that kind of 'help'. Calling it psychic murder, or saying that rape is worse than murder seems to imply that the victim would be better off if they were murdered. I don't even know what to say about that except that it doesn't seem to have very good implications for rape victims, and that perhaps people shouldn't be perpetuating that idea. But I can't put myself in these peoples' shoes, so it might be completely different for them.

 

[axlryder]

Yeah, I fail to see how this is any different than a victim of torture or one who had witnessed the murder of someone dear to them at a young age. All of these things are emotionally traumatic on a deep level and will likely fuck you up for the rest of your life. Rape isn't special in that regard. At least, not so special that I'm suddenly going to treat it with some kind of new-found "respect". I never used the word rape colloquially anyway, but this doesn't really change my perspective on anything.

Many perceive rape as an act in which the perpetrator merely wants to sexually and/or swiftly gratify themselves. Therefore, how can it be so traumatising?

A number of rapists will use any verbal, physical means they can to make the victim feel as degraded as possible. Inflicted degradation is how they stimulate a sense of power over the victim, as well as (possibly) a form of externally sadomasochistic, sexual gratification.

Rape is about using sex as a tool of dominance.

Such methods include degrading language (worthless, ****, slut) sodomy, urination, defecation, spitting, slapping, hair-pulling and weaponry.

This is made more effective by the victims body being biologically self-stimulating during rape, regardless of resistance.

When women are raped, they?re being conversely reminded of how men have and in some cases still perceive women. Weak, stupid, sexual objects.

Some women are aware of the implications while BEING raped. Potential pregnancy, injustice (victim-blaming) and the intolerance they may receive. Such knowledge causes the experience to be even more upsetting.

These things are what embody the horror of rape.

It?s not solely the experience, It?s the numerous implications and how rape victims are treated by society.

first of all, singling out woman specifically makes me take your view less seriously, as both men and woman can be and are raped.

Secondly, there's an enormous range of circumstances under which "rape" can occur. It can be an offense that leaves no significant emotional scars on the victim (they were drunk and don't even remember it happening), or result trauma deep enough to warrant suicide or insanity. People's reaction to rape is simply an extension of the trauma of rape. That still doesn't make it special. If a child witnesses his parent's torturous murder, not only will he have to live with that trauma, but he will then be an orphan, where is fate could be very grim in the wrong circumstances (try not to look at this from a first world perspective). I'm not saying victim blaming is okay or not a problem, simply that it doesn't suddenly elevate rape into some special level of awfulness to me.

thirdly, I never said it wasn't traumatic (I never even implied it). I merely said it wasn't more traumatic that the other atrocious things that happen to people around the world on a daily basis or "special" to me in some regard. Rape is shitty. So are a lot of other things. To even feel the need to make the points you made was a presumptuous inclination and a wasteful one. Wasteful of both my and your time.

Overall, I'm a little confused. Perhaps you should have been more specific in what you desired? You requested to know why others think rape is uniquely traumatising, so I humbly gave you an individualistic answer solely based on that description.

I know both men and women can be raped. I merely pointed out that there are societal suggestions when a woman is being raped by a man.

I know there's an enormous range of circumstances under which "rape" can occur, and I wonder why you didn't think of that when you wrote your aforementioned comment on this article.

I never said rape was "special"... but then (snort) this isn't a competition. Both are traumatizing, that's what's important... obviously. However, I do believe rape is more consequential/presents more implications.

I never said you didn't understand why rape was traumatic.

The suggestion that this was a waste of both of our time came across as a needless addition, so I'll pretend I didn't read that to avoid further bewilderment.

I didn't request people to explain anything to me. Saying "I fail to see" wasn't meant to be an invitation for someone to explain their reasoning. It can be used rhetorically (as evinced by the rest of my statement that shows I'd already drawn a conclusion on the matter).

There are obviously distinct societal implications when a man is raped by a woman, too. They're not good ones either. Why do you think men are so unwilling to come forward when they've been victims of sexual abuse? but I guess you didn't think that was worth mentioning. Also, what do you mean "I should have considered that", in regards to the range of circumstances? I made my whole point in consideration OF that fact. I'm sorry I had to spell that out for you. Rape can be very bad, yes, but people often cite examples of "rape" and why it's so prevalent and then instantly liken it to this brutalizing that you pointed out. However, date rape is by far the most common type of rape and doesn't often fit that brutal profile. I also often see people act as though the effects of murder or attempted murder is something that can be brushed off or some kind of rare thing that can be marginalized. Where I come from, murder is rather common and I'm not going to presume that date rape is worse than some of the things people I've known (and even I myself) have gone through. Hell, I've known adult men who killed themselves over some of the crap that happened to them. I've known of woman who had their unborn child stabbed and killed.

Of course there's the purported overall societal implications of rape and the idea that flippant use of the word/concept perpetuates it in our culture and that its use is a reminder/confirmation of woman's objectification in our culture, yadda yadda. I'm aware of these ideas, but that still doesn't change my view on rape. I think it just means there's a problem with our culture. I'd also argue that all the violence in our culture is also a problem and might actually perpetuate violence, but nobody seems to care about that. Though, I don't think that should result in censorship, just as I also don't think our culture's problems with rape are any kind of justification to keep media involving rape out of the general adult public's hands and I don't believe people should colloquially use the term rape/murder/torture/etc. in a video game or tell violent jokes to people they aren't familiar with. So my position on rape is about the same as my position on murder or torture. Just because other idiots might find various uses of the concept to be some kind of validation for their practice of sexism/rape (a potentiality that I'm somewhat skeptical of) it doesn't change my view on the general idea of rape. It just makes me think they're idiots.

Ultimately I'm really not trying to argue what is more consequential. Of course, initially I hadn't even brought up its consequence, which is another issue entirely that I touched on above. Regardless, I think there are plenty of things in this world just as bad as rape (in all its various forms). I'm not going to treat the idea of it with a special amount of care in that regard (as I said before). We agree to disagree.

Also, this was a waste of both of our time. You can pretend not to have read it, but you still did. I'd recommend not responding though, as this will most likely devolve into bickering.

 

[Guilherme Zoldan]

Gotta love the escapist comunity, always competing to see who can be the smuggest, most pretentious poster ever.
Look guys, I think the point that some of the people here are trying to make is that: Just because some people are offended or troubled by some word, doesnt mean it should never be used. Cause if we did that we wouldnt be able to say anything.